Education Leadership and Policy.2. National Science Foundation (2007). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2007, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics.3. National Science Foundation (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2004, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics.4. Goodman Research Group (2002). Final report of the women’s experiences in college engineering (WECE) project, Cambridge, MA.5. Davis, C-S. & Finelli, C.J. (2007), Diversity and Retention in Engineering, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, v2007, n111, p63-7.6
Robotics course instructor available to answer her questions and provide tips andresources, she became more confident in her role over the course of the semester and alsorealized that she is not “in this all alone.” The key point that the teacher reported in coming tothe ePDN Robotic course was that she felt the need to be educated to integrate Robotics into theschool curriculum and to develop technological fluency. She also reported that she first neededto experience Robotics design experience herself and to engage in a learning by designexperience through a professional development course in order to teach robotics courseseffectively in her school. The LEGO Robotics ePDN courses met these needs. She concludedthe interview by stating ”It s like a
. Page 22.904.12References[1] Malik Q, Koehler MJ, Mishra P, Buch N, Shanblatt M, Pierce SJ, 2010. Understanding student attitudes in a freshman design sequence. International Journal of Engineering Education; 26(5): 1179-1191[2] Farrell S, Hesketh RP, Newell JA, Slater CS, 2001. Introducing freshmen to reverse engineering and design through investigation of the brewing process. International Journal of Engineering Education; 17(6): 588-592[3] Al-Rizzo H, Mohan S, Reed M, Kinley D, Hemphill Z, Finley C, Pope A, Osborn D, Crolley W, 2010. Directional-based cellular e-commerce: undergraduate systems engineering capstone design project. International Journal of Engineering Education; 26(5): 1285-1304.[4] Hines PD
upon work supportedby the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1033111.References1. Berra, Y. (2002) When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It!: Inspiration and Wisdom from One of Baseball's Greatest Heroes, Hyperion: 1592. National Academy of Engineering (2008) Grand Challenges for Engineering, http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/Object.File/Master/11/574/Grand Challenges final book.pdf3. Marx, L. (1987) Does improved technology mean progress? Technology Review (January): 33-41; 714. Gray, E. (1988) The World That Moses Built, PBS, The American Experience5. Dolnick, S. (2010) On Bronx Stoops, a Highway’s Traffic Entertains, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/nyregion/02bottleneck.html
traversing of an engineerthrough the world in this context can help define engineering. Bibliography 1. Dall’Alba, G., J. Sandberg. (2006). Unveiling Professional Development: A Critical Review of Stage Models. Review of Educational Research. 76(3). 383-412. 2. Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Learning Professional Ways of Being: Ambiguities of Becoming. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 41(1): 34-45. 3. Florman, S.(1976). The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. St. Martin’s Griffin. New York City. 4. Bonasso, S. G. (2001). Engineering, Leadership, and Integral Philosophy. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 127(1), 17. 5
quiz administered after activity four were inconsistent and itis difficult to generalize beyond what has already been discussed.ConclusionsThe assessment instrument was found to be very poor at discriminating between the relativemerits of the different activities. The author strongly feels that there was significant growth ofthe students’ R&R knowledge and capabilities from activity to activity, but it is not apparentfrom the assessment tools that were used. Further development and refinement of the author’simplemented assessment tools are required.Bibliography1. NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/, January 5, 2011.2. Bloom, Benjamin S., Engelhart, Max D., Furst, Edward J., Hill
ddesigned for UPF. The R Rockn’ Bowleer allows a person with partial p quadrriplegia to boowl. This devvice is a “high-end”attachmeent for the Un niversal Playy Frame, giv ving the userr a great deall of control oover the spinn andplacemen nt of the balll. Perhaps th he most uniqu ue feature off the Rock nn’ Bowler is the powereddspinning rail system that can be used u to add spin s to the b all. As the bball rolls dow wn the ramp,, itcomes inn contact with h two rails spinning
2009. His research interests are in mechanics and engineering education.William T. Springer, University of Arkansas William T. Springer is 21st Century Chair in Mechanical Engineering and Associate Professor at the University of Arkansas. He received his BSME in 1974 from the University of Texas at Arlington, his MSME in 1979 from the University of Texas at Arlington, and his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1982 from the University of Texas at Arlington. Dr. Springer is active in ASME where he received the Dedicated Service Award in 2006, was elected to Fellow Grade in 2008, and was awarded the S. Y. Zamrik Pressure Vessels and Piping Medal in 2011
observations, like those of the zebra mussels described above, have ledto many questions which the team is interested in exploring. For example, students haveobserved plant material scattered, sometimes densely, about the underside of the ice roof. Theyhave questions such as; what species of plant(s) are represented, how the material migrates to theice roof, and what happens to it over the winter and into spring?More information about this team’s work is presented on the HSE website:http://www.enterprise.mtu.edu/highschool/currentteams/traverse-city-central/index.html. Theteam also posts many videos on its own Vimeo pages: http://vimeo.com/user1446488/videosSummary and ConclusionsThis paper has focused on one HSE team using ROVs to excite and motivate
major incidents,tracking assets and resources is hindered by a lack of interoperability between theagencies2. Interoperability3,4,5 encompasses the radio communications between theagencies as well as the coordination of responses and creating a command and controlorganization. Agencies each use their own particular set of communications equipment, Local S Responders Communications P T O A L N Resource I State D
, gender, institution as obtained through surveys and virtual and real communities) • Number and type of student engaged in LTS • LTS career impacts to faculty • Learning outcomes for students from participation in LTS activities • Institutions with LTS (program models, number of faculty and students involved, disciplines) • Communities benefited by LTS (locations, number of projects created, project types, number of people affected)5.0 AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNos. 1022927, 1022883, 1022738, 1023022, and 1022831. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do
Agrawal R. Programming games to learn algorithms. Proceedings of theASEE Conference 2007.3. Bowen J. Motivating civil engineering students to learn computer programming with astructural design project. Proceedings of the ASEE Conference 2004.4. Bundy D. Four steps to teaching C programming. Proceedings of the Frontiers in EducationConference 2002.5. Clough D. Teaching introductory computing to ChE students - A modern computing coursewith emphasis on problem solving and programming. Proceedings of the ASEE Conference2002.6. Clough D, Chapra S and Huvard G. A change in approach to engineering computing forfreshmen - Similar directions at three dissimilar institutions. Proceedings of the ASEEConference 2001
for options. For example, adesign engineer may use brainstorming for all occasions; there can be various reasons for this, Page 22.174.4some of them understandable. First, learning a new method may require some time, further,identifying which method is more appropriate to learn for the particular design problem can bedifficult. The knowledge or expertise to identify which method(s) are most appropriate for eachdesign problem, takes time to develop, and when considering multiple areas or disciplines in thedesign process, one can imagine the difficulty of becoming expert in more than one area (e.g.design quality, design creativity, sustainable
capstone senior design course objectives and outcomes are met, the senior designteams and each student is evaluated by course instructor, faculty advisor(s), two or more in thecase of the multidisciplinary teams, peer evaluation, external sponsors, Mechanical EngineeringAdvisory Council (MEAC) and by senior exit interviews. These evaluations are conductedthrough presentations, reports, staff meeting and Peer self evaluations. Grading rubrics weredeveloped for assessment during the course. It was established to assess the students on the courseobjectives and student outcomes as set forth in the course syllabus. During the two semesters the teams present their project a total seven times. During the 1stsemester the team has three presentations
Transportation Policy: Funding Metro Atlanta’s Transportation Needs, Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, 2010. 2. Goodwill, J. & Hendricks, S. Building Transit Oriented Development in Established Communities. Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR). Tampa, FL. November 2002. Helling, Amy. The Effect of Residential Accessibility to Employment on Men’s and Women’s Travel. George State University. Women’s Travel Issues; Proceedings from the Second National Conference. 3. 2007 Atlanta Regional Commuter Survey, 20-County Nonattainment Area, Survey Key Findings. Georgia Department of Transportation 4. Wolf, J. ,Guensler, R. ,Washington, S. & Lawrence, F. Use of Electronic Travel Diaries and Vehicle
design and problem solving throughout theirundergraduate curricula. Findings are drawn from the Prototyping the Engineer of 2020: A 360-degree Study of Effective Education (P360) and Prototype to Production: Processes and Conditionsfor Preparing the Engineer of 2020 (P2P) projects. P360’s qualitative data from six case studiesexamines concrete examples of effective design curricula and co-curricular activities. P2P, whichcollected quantitative data from 31 four-year engineering schools to provide information on thestructure of the design curriculum in nearly 120 engineering programs, augments the qualitativedata from P360. Both projects collected data from multiple sources: faculty, program chairs,administrators, and undergraduate engineering
mentoring is becoming more widely known throughout business and academic fields,women still feel at a disadvantage in terms of finding a mentor or a group of mentors to assistthem during their careers. Because STEM fields, such as engineering, are traditionally maledominated fields, women may find it difficult to find a proper mentor(s) to suit their needs. Fewwomen occupy high organizational ranks, which in turn may create difficulty when femaleprotégés are trying to initiate a mentoring relationship with potential female mentors20. Studies have also shown that the gender of the mentor and protégé may affect the overallmentoring experience20,21. Mentoring relationships that contain participants with the same genderare often more successful and
support education institutions that embrace manufacturing as anecessary and critical career pathway and in the process create the workforce necessary for theeconomic growth and stability of the United States.Bibliography1 National Science Foundation, Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/nsf07315.pdf2 Georges, Annie.“Keeping What We’ve Got: The Impact of Financial Aid on MinorityRetention in Engineering” NACME Research Letter Volume 9, No 2. NACME, New York, NY1995.3 Sullivan, J., Davis, S., deGrazia, J., and Carolson, D., “Beyond the Pipeline: Building a K-12 EngineeringOutreach Program”, Proceedings of the 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 11b5-21-26, San Juan,Puerto Rico, Nov. 1999.4 Poole, S., deGrazia, J
one of the FIGs, called FORCES (FocusOn Retention in Cohorts of Engineering Students), compared to students in the other three FIGsand the College of Engineering as a whole. FORCES is funded by NSF’s S-STEM (Scholarshipsin Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) program and targets students inunderrepresented groups for recruitment with the broad goals of removing financial barriers andimproving student retention.Recognizing that success in mathematics is critical to engineering student success, key FORCESprogram elements were designed with a focus on calculus. FORCES scholars were required todemonstrate first fall semester calculus readiness by either earning an acceptable score on theuniversity’s Math Aptitude Test (MAT) or by
Liquid Chromatography Laboratory (HLCL) which is designed to facilitate ablended learning mode. Page 22.1662.6 Figure 5: Actual LP Biologic Chromatography SystemLearning cyclesThe proposed blended learning cycle recommends a five-step approach to student learning: 1. use simulations and online materials to learn the theory and basic principles underlying protein purification; 2. use simulations to become familiar with a liquid column chromatography system, its components and their function; 3. perform virtual experiment(s); 4. evaluate knowledge and virtual skills, using a built-in assessment tool, before granting access
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, 2001.2. Wankat, P. C. and Oreovicz, F. S., Teaching Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1993.3. Lowman, J., Mastering the Techniques of Teaching, 2nd Edition, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1995.4. Klosky, J. L. and VanderSchaaf, R., “Hands-on-Demonstrations in Introductory Mechanics”, Proceedings of 2002 ASEE Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada, 9 pp., June, 2002.5. Lesko, J., Duke, J., Holzer, S., and Auchey, F., “Hands-on-Statics Integration into an Engineering Mechanics- Statics Course: Development and Scaling”, Proceedings of 1999 ASEE Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC, 7 pp., June, 1999.6. Graves, E., “Demonstrations that Work in the
controllers. 2. The Premium kit uses the CM-510 controller with additional capabilities beyond the CM- 5’s as it can also interface with user-created sensors using memory-mapped I/O ports. It also has similar RS-232 and ZigBee communications capabilities. 3. The CM-700 became available in mid 2010 as a bare-bone controller having all the capabilities of the CM-5 and CM-510, and also RS-485 interfaces to the more advanced servo motors from Robotis series RX and EX. The CM-700 is not yet used in our robotics course. Figure 1. Current Bioloid controllers CM-5, CM-510 and CM-700.For communications between a PC and the various CM-5/510/700 controllers, there are a varietyof options (see Fig. 2): 1. Plain RS-232 9
. Thurston, S. Hundley, “Enhancing Student Classroom Engagement through SocialNetworking Technology”, 2010 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.3. L. Frehill, A. Lain, C. Didion, “Destination Unknown: Gender Differences in Attrition from Graduate Study inEngineering”, 2010 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.4. J.K. Estell, “Connecting with Alumni: An Experiment In Social Networking Using Facebook Groups”, 2009ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.5. ABET, “2010-2011 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.” http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2010-11%20EAC%20Criteria%201-27-10.pdf Page 22.1707.6
authors gratefully acknowledge Prof. Daniel Frey for consenting to use his course as acontext for this study and also thank the students for their participation. The work described inthis paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Award 0830134. Theopinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed are those of the authors and donot necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. Page 22.1501.15References1. Hsi, S., Linn, M., and Bell, J. (1997). The role of spatial reasoning in engineering and the design of spatial instruction. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 151–158.2. Sorby, S. (2009). Educational
experience with the team project. If you speak about thecontents of the focus group outside the group it is expected that you will not tell others whatindividual participants said. Please let us know what you think. 1. To start off this conversation, I’d like to know more about you: a. Please state your name, major(s), and minor(s) b. Please take a minute to explain the MTR project in your own words. c. List three things you learned (specifically) while working on this project. 2. In what way has participation in the MTR project shaped your global awareness and understanding (of other people and cultures). Please give an example. 3. You may consider yourself a
, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press.3. Foenix-Riou, B. (2006). When search engines play at maps: Visualization technologies. Online, 30(2), 29-32.4. Marcinko, R., & Arnold, S. (2009). Grokker mystery : Beyond search. Retrieved 2/18/2011, 2011, from http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/08/22/grokker-mystery/5. IBM Research, & IBM Cognos Software Group. (2010). Many eyes. Retrieved 2/22/2011, 2011, from http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/6. Simboli, B. D. (2008). Web of science's "citation mapping" tool. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, (54), 5-5. http://www.istl.org/08-summer/electronic-1.html7. Luther, J., Kelly, M., & Beagle, D. (2005). Visualize this. Library Journal
educational system. Why cannot a system develop wherefaculty with research aspirations are balanced by those who have passion for teaching, withouttrying to get “a little bit of everything” from each person? In this way both sets of individualshave the ability to expand there potential to greater heights within their own area of passion.In fact the power structure of most of academia is held by those who have doctorates, and believethat this is the single criteria for exclusion. This is in part due to the diversity of criteria acrossthe various technical and non-technical fields. It also has roots in the executive directives of the1960’s to develop a research powerhouse within the United States to compete with cold war
they are not in a traditional engineering program nor in the EDDP.Appendix A contains a comprehensive listing of the month and year each survey participantgraduated and Appendix B shows the distribution of responses by engineering discipline.Research QuestionsResearch questions were developed to gather a large amount of data that can be evaluated toanswer the research problems. The questions were compiled using an if/then system in thesurvey tool. The employment questions (3-10) were given based upon the previous question’sresponse. Each participant was asked questions 10-14. The questions are: 1. Month and year of graduation 2. Major(s) 3. When did you receive your first job offer (related to your major)? Month and year 4. Did
problemsolving task, we explored how technology and engineering students approach solvingcomputational problems. This study is guided under the premise that people’s ways ofexperiencing phenomena result from the unique interaction of their understanding of thephenomena and the situation in which they must apply that understanding 6 . Our ultimate goal isthat by identifying, comparing, and contrasting students’ understandings and strategies toapproach problems, more effective instructional approaches will be identified.Theoretical FrameworksProblem-based learning and Computational thinking theoretical frameworks are merged in thedesign and analysis of this study. Problem-Based learning is a student-centered instructionalstrategy to guide the learner(s
(s) made to your program. 6. Has further assessment been made to measure the effectiveness of the change(s) made?The primary modes of assessment asked about were surveys, focus groups, and advisory boards,along with an “other” category to allow for the accounting of other assessment modes. Of the113 responses to this question, 99.1% of the programs reported using one or more surveyinstruments, with 55.8% using paper surveys, 42.5% using e-mail surveys, 60.2% using web-based surveys, and 4.4% using telephone surveys. The next highest used mode was the industrialadvisory board, with 87.6% of the programs indicating their use. Finally, only 43.4% of theprograms reported using focus groups, with 37.2% using alumni focus groups and 33.6